SINGARAM CHETTIAR Vs. VALATHAMMAI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment-debtor is the petitioner.

(2.) In E.P.No.20 of 1983 in O.S.No.72 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai brought by the decree-holder for attachment and sale of the immovable properties, the judgment-debtor claimed protection under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act No.50 of 1982. It is relevant to note that- the suit is for recovery of the value of the jewels weighing 61 sovereigns entrusted by the decree--holder to the judgment-debtor, as the judgment-debtor failed to return the jewels in specie. The Court below, therefore, held that the judgment-debtor would not be entitled to any protection under the Act" and, therefore, ordered further process in the execution.

(3.) Mr.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit being for recovery of money, the decree-debt will fall within the ambit of "debt" as defined under S.3(c) of the Act. Whatever may be the entrustment, the suit having been filed for recovery of money, the decree would amount to a liability and, therefore, the judgment-debtor is entitled to seek protection under the Act. S.3(c) of the Act defines "debt" and it means any liability in cash or in kind, whether secured or unsecured and whether decreed or not, but does not include arrears of taxes due to the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority. It may be stated at once that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would not fall in any of the exceptions envisaged under the proviso to S.3(d) of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Abdul Aziz v. Yasodammal and another, 1977 T.L.N.J. 347 and Sri Visalam Chit Funds Ltd. v. P.N.Srinivasa Mudaliar, (1975)88 L.W. 415.